Yes.
Completely irrelevant.
Storm argues that the inauguration isnât valid. He cites a few reasons.
There are multiple investigations that can impact this presidency. Thatâs my point.
Nope, still not viable. Legally, the inauguration was valid. No matter what Storm thinks, it was legal and binding, and certified by Congress. The âinvestigationsâ are shams and have been the entire time, in every single facet. In fact, at no point did Trumpâs actual lawyers allege fraud in the courtroom. Are you even aware of that?
By your logic, if a single person doesnât believe it, itâs not valid. The fact is, Storm is a fucking idiot. The GOP is trying to âinvestigateâ to allow them to change voting laws as to steal an election, like removing the certifications from the Secretaries of States. There are ZERO investigations that can impact this presidency. You can click your little red heels together, Dorothy, but that doesnât change reality.
And anything that is bound by Congress can be unbound by SCOTUS OR Congress itselfâŚ. So whatâs your point?
-
This is solely your opinion.
-
Iâve repeatedly demonstrated that Trump attorneys and those suing on the Campaigns behalf were always denied on standing and not the merits. None have been afforded the opportunity to have an evidentiary hearing in open court.
Almost 60% of the country believes that Biden cheated. So now everyone except for you and a small minority of ultra biased partisans are idiots? Lol.
Talk about Dunning Kruger!
One can believe whatever they want. That doesnât make it true.
1 Like
Yes but this would come AFTER the claim of fraud. Wardenâs not asserting that no evidence was presented, heâs asserting that Trumpâs lawyers never even claimed it in official papers/proceedings.
No they donât.
Then he is absolutely, positively wrong.
There were over 60 filings. A handful attempted to argue the law.
Many many many more argued fraud. They presented affidavits, video, statistical analyses, etcâŚ. They presented election experts and statisticians. None of it was ever slowed to be presented in a court under the rules of evidence.
Complete bill shit.
Go fuck your whore mother
She probably hates him as much as his own daughter.
Censoring opinion is one thing; censoring behavior is another.
My preference is for the board to be fairly civil instead of an ongoing shytshow. But. itâs Dallasâ board not mine.
IMHO, trolling and foul language (C word, etc.) should get you deleted and eventually banned if the offender persists.
Otherwise, Broward Cane is still posting.
1 Like
I believe Warden is referencing this type of stuff:
âThis is not a fraud case,â Giuliani later admitted.
âAre you claiming that there is any fraud in connection with these 592 disputed ballots?â To which Goldstein replied: âTo my knowledge at present, no.â
âThe parties specifically stipulated in their comprehensive stipulation of facts that there exists no evidence of any fraud, misconduct, or any impropriety with respect to the challenged ballots."
âWe are not alleging fraud in this lawsuit. We are not alleging anyone stealing the election.â
âShe never demonstrated that a single actual vote was moved illegitimately by software from one candidate to another,â Carlson said. âNot one.â - Tucker Carlson
Lawyers representing Trumpâs campaign sent a letter to Attorney General William Barr on Nov. 5 alleging âcriminal voter fraudâ in Nevada. But lawyers representing Trump never made that allegation in court filings.
On and on and on.
I personally am not going to take a side here as I donât know if Trumpâs team ever did actually claim sweeping fraud in any of the filings, but itâs undeniable that for a lot of them, fraud was parroted in media settings but not claimed in the courtroom.
Here, here. I agree with this.
This is a place for discussion. If your behavior interferes with discussion, itâs better for everyone to move on.
It always appeared to me that they were saying one thing in front of the cameras, and something completely different in court.
From my count- that article details 6 Trump cases. So it is exactly what I said.
Some cases thought it wiser to argue law, procedure, obstruction, etcâŚ. Some thought it wiser to proceed with fraud.
And of almost 70 court filings, decided by judges - some of whom Trump appointed, how many were determined to be fraudulent? And of those, was it enough to swing the election?
Do I actually have to explain it again?
Nope. Because you know as well as I do that if there was legitimate proof of election fraud, the courts would have allowed it to proceed.
That there wasnât - and that you donât like that there wasnât - is the reason youâre upset.
This just isnât true. A judge has the ultimate discretion on whether to allow a case to proceed. And you have absolutely no way to know why he made his decision. And in many of these cases itâs pretty obvious that trial judges didnât want to open Pandoraâs box on the election and be subjected to the media attention they would receive over it.
Uh huh.
OK so big question⌠Who reviews the judge if he throws out a case on lack of standing?
It canât be appealed at the federal level as far I I know. It would have to be remanded back to state courts to decide if standing does indeed exist. And if they are too chicken shit to hear the case as well, then once again, no where to appeal.
A closed system.
It would then fall to state legislatures or congress to rewrite laws or conduct investigations, which is the phase were in now in multiple states.